Abortion, special cercimstances?

[JRKH]

Hi, friend.

I think that you really are deceiving yourself.

And I think that you are decieving yourself.

I also note that you take exception to my statemnt without saying why.
But if you wish to elaborate on why you think that I am wrong in saying that, so long as every effort is made to preserve the child, such a scenerio would not fall under the heading of intentional killing of the fetus I will try to clarify.

Peace
James

 

[tobinatorstark]

Here we are again. Peter, I respect you a lot, but you have just as much to learn as much as I do. I have a hard time believing that your parish council would approve of contraceptives or promote any circumstance where the fetus in killed off for any reason. This is what I am gathering from your statements.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Here we are again. Peter, I respect you a lot, but you have just as much to learn as much as I do. I have a hard time believing that your parish council would approve of contraceptives or promote any circumstance where the fetus in killed off for any reason. This is what I am gathering from your statements.

Hi, Toby.

The discussion preceding my motion for financing for an anti-contraception budget was very thorough. They knew what they were doing.

The pastor actually challenged Humanae Vitae. He said, “Oh, come now, Peter, do you really think that Humanae Vitae is Biblical?” I answered that 4 verses of the Bible expressly condemn use of contraceptives, 3 of them with black-hearted threats of Hell. He said, “Prove it!” I did.

He refused to approve any anti-contraception budget item. (Parish councils in New Jersey are advisory, only – the pastor has an absolute veto power.) After that, he would publicly say, “Peter is in the most conservative 5% of the most conservative 5% of Catholics.”

I always responded, “No, Father, I simply have correct beliefs.”

 

[grannymh]

Hi, Toby.

The discussion preceding my motion for financing for an anti-contraception budget was very thorough. They knew what they were doing.

The pastor actually challenged Humanae Vitae. He said, “Oh, come now, Peter, do you really think that Humanae Vitae is Biblical?” I answered that 4 verses of the Bible expressly condemn use of contraceptives, 3 of them with black-hearted threats of Hell. He said, “Prove it!” I did.

He refused to approve any anti-contraception budget item. (Parish councils in New Jersey are advisory, only – the pastor has an absolute veto power.) After that, he would publicly say, “Peter is in the most conservative 5% of the most conservative 5% of Catholics.”

I always responded, “No, Father, I simply have correct beliefs.”

I believe this happened. Have read similar about other places.

 

[LBSDBS]

by this logic there should be no all out ban on anything, in short, no laws at all that prohibit any crimes. Why ban murder? people are going to kill anyhow. Why ban drunk driving? people still do it. Why ban theft? it still happens. This logic leads in only one direction: anarchy, the absence of law.

You will have to frame the argument in another way if you want to make sense.

What will NOT work and has not in the past and never will is compromise with truth and moral absolutes.

As far as murder goes, it’s a rather unique one. Since both societies and governments pose the maximum penalties on murder, people generally don’t commit murder unless they have lost control of themselves or think they are going to get away with it. In both cases, politics and law go right out the window. This is partially why, despite having a very high conviction and execution rate, which they carry out very quickly, the state of Texas STILL has a high murder rate.

The interactivity with living creatures is where the effectiveness of crimes truly differs. First off, prohibitions that are considered morally questionable in society tend to get harbored more then those that are not. This is part of the reason why I pointed out the need to change the social outlook on abortion.

Secondly, the ability to effectively reduce crime is in fact based on the way the public treats it, and people tend to not respond unless they personally have a stake in it. For instance, if you have your own store and someone tries to rob it, you are going to want to either defend yourself and your store with a gun or other sort of weapon, or have the robber arrested or both. In this case, he has given you a motive to go after him and have him brought to justice. Now let’s look at a very different matter. There are some pot smokes in your general area. They buy and smoke it illegally, but they do not bother you either. Then you have no motivation to go after them. Even though what they are doing is illegal, they do it without fear of getting caught. They are not afraid because no one cares about their habits enough to turn them in, and smoking pot it’s self is not an act that 3rd parties need to defend themselves from. In the case of murder, even IF your nephew or grandson is murdered in secret, you are going to be motivated to hunt down his killer. That is assuming you knew that your grandson or nephew even existed which is where the political nature of murder changes when it comes to abortion.

The political effects of abortion are closer to the marijuana scenario. If a couple has sex and finds out the baby is pregnant in a place where abortion is illegal, they can have some doctor illegally perform the abortion in secret, and now everyone who even knows the baby ever existed is a party who is not only uninterested in going to the law, but has a very strong motivation to keep it secret. Now you have an entire criminal underworld market revolving around abortion. This is exactly what happened in Communist Romania, but in their case, they were even more volatile about it. Ceausescu outlawed abortion and offered rewards to parents who chose to have more kids in order to raise Romania’s population and work force. The results were different then what he sought. They were actually dumping both aborted and un-aborted babies in garbage cans and burying them in the forests, and this was in a very cruel communist regime where you WOULD be imprisoned and maybe even tortured if caught.

Again, I am with you guys about the nature of abortion and the need to minimize this problem. I just don’t see the idea of an all-out ban on abortion achieving the results we want. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer to the problem either. What I think is that we should be focusing allot more to finding the answer rather then assuming we already have it.

 

[JRKH]

As far as murder goes, it’s a rather unique one. Since both societies and governments pose the maximum penalties on murder, people generally don’t commit murder unless they have lost control of themselves or think they are going to get away with it. In both cases, politics and law go right out the window. This is partially why, despite having a very high conviction and execution rate, which they carry out very quickly, the state of Texas STILL has a high murder rate.

The interactivity with living creatures is where the effectiveness of crimes truly differs. First off, prohibitions that are considered morally questionable in society tend to get harbored more then those that are not. This is part of the reason why I pointed out the need to change the social outlook on abortion.

Secondly, the ability to effectively reduce crime is in fact based on the way the public treats it, and people tend to not respond unless they personally have a stake in it. For instance, if you have your own store and someone tries to rob it, you are going to want to either defend yourself and your store with a gun or other sort of weapon, or have the robber arrested or both. In this case, he has given you a motive to go after him and have him brought to justice. Now let’s look at a very different matter. There are some pot smokes in your general area. They buy and smoke it illegally, but they do not bother you either. Then you have no motivation to go after them. Even though what they are doing is illegal, they do it without fear of getting caught. They are not afraid because no one cares about their habits enough to turn them in, and smoking pot it’s self is not an act that 3rd parties need to defend themselves from. In the case of murder, even IF your nephew or grandson is murdered in secret, you are going to be motivated to hunt down his killer. That is assuming you knew that your grandson or nephew even existed which is where the political nature of murder changes when it comes to abortion.

The political effects of abortion are closer to the marijuana scenario. If a couple has sex and finds out the baby is pregnant in a place where abortion is illegal, they can have some doctor illegally perform the abortion in secret, and now everyone who even knows the baby ever existed is a party who is not only uninterested in going to the law, but has a very strong motivation to keep it secret. Now you have an entire criminal underworld market revolving around abortion. This is exactly what happened in Communist Romania, but in their case, they were even more volatile about it. Ceausescu outlawed abortion and offered rewards to parents who chose to have more kids in order to raise Romania’s population and work force. The results were different then what he sought. They were actually dumping both aborted and un-aborted babies in garbage cans and burying them in the forests, and this was in a very cruel communist regime where you WOULD be imprisoned and maybe even tortured if caught.

Again, I am with you guys about the nature of abortion and the need to minimize this problem. I just don’t see the idea of an all-out ban on abortion achieving the results we want. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer to the problem either. What I think is that we should be focusing allot more to finding the answer rather then assuming we already have it.

Well thought out and presented. Thank you for this.
While I do not agree that an all out ban on abortion is a bad thing, I DO agree that the culture must be changed first. The Law reflects the culture and not the other way around.
On the other hand, regardless of the law, there will be those who break it, and there will be those who stand by and allow it to be broken for whatever reason (indifference or fear of involvement or fear of reprisal).
The aspect that I think you are missing here is the idea of Laws reflecting, not the reality of society, but rather the ideals of society. We should not steal so we have laws against it. We should not abuse drugs and alchohol so we have laws controlling substances and penalties for the abuse thereof. Same with Abortion. The Law reflects what the government and society view as the “Ideal”. That it is alright to kill the child in the womb. In fact that the child is not a child. it is merely “tissue”.
It is only once enough people are convinced, and then mobilized for change, that the law will change to reflect the higher ideal of protecting our Children and future.
Will this engender an underground? Yes it will. Of this there can be no doubt. But that underground existed before Roe V. Wade and will exist in any event and in any situation as you demonstrate by your “Romania” example. What will occur also in this underground situation is that, the persons must be morally willing to break the law, and also must recognize that they are taking a considerable chance, both from a legal and medical standpoint by an illegal abortion. Right now the ony one in danger is the only one who is completely innocent.

It is up to us to pray, vote, demonstrate, write, and speak up in favor of the child. To teach people that this is wrong and such a law as legal abortion, in this country where ALL have the right to life libery and the pursuit of happiness, is a travesty.

Peace
James

 

[grannymh]

The political effects of abortion are closer to the marijuana scenario.
.

Actually, both abortion and weed can kill. The first immediately. The second over time. Sometimes multiple victims. Sometimes death. Sometimes emotional, psychological, social, physical damage.

 

[grannymh]

Again, I am with you guys about the nature of abortion and the need to minimize this problem. I just don’t see the idea of an all-out ban on abortion achieving the results we want. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer to the problem either. What I think is that we should be focusing allot more to finding the answer rather then assuming we already have it.

I do agree with you above-- " the nature of abortion and the need to minimize the problem." But the special circumstances of abortion, etc., is only the tip of the iceberg. And remember what happened to the Titanic, the unsinkable one.

The reality is that this country is about to take away any kind of reasonable caution about abortion and in doing so take away the rights of the individual and institutions to act in accord with their conscience.

Please, read the fine print in both state and federal proposed legislation.

I would not be surprised to see hospitals and pharmacies close.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

 

[LBSDBS]

The aspect that I think you are missing here is the idea of Laws reflecting, not the reality of society, but rather the ideals of society. We should not steal so we have laws against it. We should not abuse drugs and alchohol so we have laws controlling substances and penalties for the abuse thereof. Same with Abortion. The Law reflects what the government and society view as the “Ideal”. That it is alright to kill the child in the womb. In fact that the child is not a child. it is merely “tissue”.
It is only once enough people are convinced, and then mobilized for change, that the law will change to reflect the higher ideal of protecting our Children and future.

Actually, that’s a little closer to what I had in mind. None the less, I am pretty firm that we need to look before we leap. There are lawful ways to experiment with these ideas to see if they actually work. I think it would be a good idea to give them a try before going further then waits deep.

Actually, both abortion and weed can kill. The first immediately. The second over time. Sometimes multiple victims. Sometimes death. Sometimes emotional, psychological, social, physical damage.

There has never been a single documented case of anyone ever dieing from an overdose of Marijuana. Anyone who honestly thinks abortion is not an act of murder has a loose screw upstairs.

I do agree with you above-- " the nature of abortion and the need to minimize the problem." But the special circumstances of abortion, etc., is only the tip of the iceberg. And remember what happened to the Titanic, the unsinkable one.

The reality is that this country is about to take away any kind of reasonable caution about abortion and in doing so take away the rights of the individual and institutions to act in accord with their conscience.

Please, read the fine print in both state and federal proposed legislation.

I would not be surprised to see hospitals and pharmacies close.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

How to go about minimizing the abortion problem is one thing. The current policies our government has in promoting the widespread practice of abortion is a totally different ballgame.

Being that we are talking about how to effectively minimize the problem, getting rid of all of the government garbage that supports and encourages it goes without saying.

 

[JRKH]

Actually, that’s a little closer to what I had in mind. None the less, I am pretty firm that we need to look before we leap. There are lawful ways to experiment with these ideas to see if they actually work. I think it would be a good idea to give them a try before going further then waits deep.

And how will we experiment with these ideas once the lawful ways are eliminated. There have been and still are efforts in legislation that would require people to act agianst their conscience. The So Called “Freedom of Choice Act” would curtail far more freedoms than it would guarentee.
In fact I wrote this very thing to my representatives. That such legislation would prevent States from acting upon the will of their citizens and curtail the open and legitimate debate and the legislative proving ground for legislation.

As for “special circumstances” as I said earlier, I might support any abortion circumstance in which the Child can be proven guilty of a crime worthy of death.

How to go about minimizing the abortion problem is one thing. The current policies our government has in promoting the widespread practice of abortion is a totally different ballgame.
Being that we are talking about how to effectively minimize the problem, getting rid of all of the government garbage that supports and encourages it goes without saying.

Yes - Yes. But even here, the government will listen to those who vote. So long as people put “non-issues” such as their wallets ahead of the real issues of Human rights, nothing will change.
The last presidential election is a case in point. Instead of realizing that the economy is cyclical and always has been, many people voted “for change” - economic change. Unfortunately what they get is economic stimulus that many economists have always dismissed as too little and too late, and a cry of victory for the “Pro-Choice” people claiming a “mandate” even from “Catholics”.

It’s a loonnngg road ahead.

Peace
James

 

[Newbie2]

THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS PROBLEM: If, say, a newly-pregnant woman has a disease which is always fatal – long before the fetus is viable outside the woman – but the treatment is a drug which always kills the fetus, the choice confronting the mother is saving just her life, or permitting both to die.

Under these circumstances, there is a moral obligation to kill the fetus by taking the drug.

The intent is to save the life of both; as Spirithound noted, this is the principle of double effect rather than a purposeful killing of the fetus (which is an abortion). This is far, far different than an intended abortion.

THE SOCIAL COMPACT PROBLEM: Occasionally, a pro-life sniper kills an abortion doctor. Objectively, such murders probably save lives in the immediately sense. The Church condemns murder of abortion doctors. When it does this, the Church is implicitly affirming the right of abortionists to pursue their trade until the power of persuasion results in a change of the law.

You’re kidding, right? The Church condemns murder in all forms. You would be correct if killing abortion doctors was the sole way of stopping abortions. But it is not, and your argument is non-sensical. If the Church were to advocate killing of abortion doctors, her stance would be hypocritical, no?

THE SUBTLE IMPLICIT SUPPORT FOR ABORTION WITHIN THE CHURCH: It is not an accident that Roe v. Wade approved of abortions when it did. The Pill immensely popularized artificial birth control in Western culture, generating a very, very stubborn, almost-impossible-to-contest demand for “risk-free nookie” in Western culture. This immensely powerful bulldozer-like demand for “risk-free nookie” uses abortion as a “back-stop”: If the sexual promiscuity generated by the “risk-free nookie” ethos results in a pregnancy despite artificial birth control, the disappointed coiuple rush to kill the fetus.

Roe v. Wade comprised a caving-in to the enormous demand to kill offspring resulting from the ethos generated by newly-popular artificial birth control.

The Church quietly caves-in to the demand, exactly the way our society did with Roe v. wade, in another way.

Despite the fact that it has long been known that use of contraceptives ultimately generates the DEMAND for abortions, That makes no sense. If contraceptives work, then there is no need for abortions. though just about every Catholic parish has a pro-life budget, almost no parish has an anti-contraception budget, and aside from encouraging Natural Family Planning the church does not actually actively condemn use of contraceptives from the pulpit.

.

This is not the Lesser of Two Evils Problem, it is the Principle of Double Effect. The intention of taking the drug is not to kill the fetus as you imply by saying “there is a moral obligation to kill the fetus by taking the drug”, the intention is for the mother to be healthy, thus “there is (may be?) a moral obligation to take the drug which has the unfortunate side effect of killing the fetus.”

This is not an abortion.

What Spirithound said.

Call it whatever you want, it’s an abortion. That’s why such drugs are call “abortifacients” – because one effect is to abort.

The Pill, itself, has been found to be an abortifacient – one-third of its effect arises from its role as an abortifacient.

Not every “pill” works that way. You need to learn what the principle of double effect is all about.

The choice of the lesser of two evils is not some rarely-encountered dilemma. We actually bump into it constantly, in an imperfect world.

The Church and especially our current Pope warns against the dangers of Relativism, i.e. “the choice of the lesser of two evils”. Good moral theology calls for recognizing how to apply Catholic theology in solving moral dilemmas, not assessing which is the lesser of two evils and running with whichever that might be judged to be.

 

[grannymh]

The So Called “Freedom of Choice Act” would curtail far more freedoms than it would guarentee.
Peace
James

This act (FOCA) is being battled on the state level without people knowing it. I bet a lot of people don’t know where their state is regarding Parental Notice of Abortion. Guess what, parents of minors, your freedom to care for your own children can be curtailed. Special circumstances regarding your child having an abortion – you may be the last, if lucky, to know.

The August 16, 2009, issue of Our Sunday Visitor highlights the conscience rights of health care workers. Special circumstances??? And the tales go on…